Re: Partitioning by status?

Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com> wrote:

> We have a set of large tables.  One of the columns is a status indicator
> (active / archived).  The queries against these tables almost always include
> the status, so partitioning against that seems to makes sense from a logical
> standpoint, especially given most of the data is "archived" and most of the
> processes want active records.
>
> Is it practical to partition on the status column and, eg, use triggers to move
> a row between the two partitions when status is updated?  Any surprises to
> watch for, given the status column is actually NULL for active data and
> contains a value when archived?

If i where you, i would try a partial index where status is null. But
yes, partitioning is an other option, depends on your workload.

Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°